Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Tata Sons Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0819-99]
Citation | 2019-LL-0819-99 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2 |
Respondent Name | Tata Sons Ltd. |
Court | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 19/08/2019 |
Assessment Year | 2004-05 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | income chargeable to tax • reasons for reopening • recording of reasons • condition precedent • reasonable belief • assessment record • issue of notice • clerical error • notice issued • reopening of assessment |
Bot Summary: | Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue urges the following two questions of law for our consideration : Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that due process of law has been not been followed in reopening of the case by the AO when the reasons were recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2019 10:02:25 ::: 2 10 ITXA 639 -2017.doc Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the error in dates mentioned while furnishing reasons for reopening and quashing the reopening proceedings while failing to appreciate that such mistake is covered under u/s 292B of the IT Act 3. The Respondent contended that the reopening notice was issued much before the reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment, thus the reopening notice was without jurisdiction. B) In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax held that the reopening notice had been issued without having recorded the reasons which led the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment. The Tribunal specifically asked the Revenue to produce the assessment record so as to substantiate its case that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued only after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. Therefore in the absence of the Revenue being able to show that the reasons were recorded prior to 6 March 2009, the impugned order held that reopening notice is without jurisdiction. D) We note that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently come to a finding of fact that no reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to issuing the reopening notice dated 6 March 2009. A) Section 292B of the Act, would have no application in the present facts as the condition precedent for issuing of the reopening notice namely, recording of reasons has not been satisfied by the Assessing Officer. |